BRIC Team reports: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director, Praveen Sood, has been given another one-year extension, as approved on Wednesday (May 13, 2026) by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.The ACC order stated that Mr. Sood’s tenure has been extended for a year beyond May 24, 2026. The 1986-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer was earlier granted one-year extension in May 2025 after completion of his two-year term as CBI chief.
‘Don’t want to be part of biased exercise’: Rahul Gandhi records dissent on CBI director’s selectionOn Tuesday (May 12, 2026), a high-powered committee chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi met to decide on the appointment of the next CBI Director. During the meeting, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi submitted a dissent note, accusing the government of “institutional capture” of the agency to target political opponents, journalists, and critics.The panel, headed by the Prime Minister, also includes Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the Opposition leader. The meeting took place at the Prime Minister’s 7, Lok Kalyan Marg residence and lasted over an hour.
Background
The one-year extension of the current CBI Director was set to end on May 24, 2026.Mr. Gandhi shared his dissent note on his X handle. “Your government has repeatedly misused the CBI, intended to be India’s premier investigative agency, to target political opponents, journalists, and critics.
Key facts
- Sood’s tenure has been extended for a year beyond May 24, 2026.
- The 1986-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer was earlier granted one-year extension in May 2025 after completion of his two-year term as CBI chief.
- The meeting took place at the Prime Minister’s 7, Lok Kalyan Marg residence and lasted over an hour.
What this means
It is to prevent such institutional capture that the Leader of Opposition is included in the Selection Committee. Regrettably, you have continued to deny me any meaningful role in the process,” he said.He said despite repeated written requests, he was not provided with the self-appraisal or 360-degree reports of the eligible candidates.“Instead, I was expected to examine the appraisal records of 69 candidates for the first time during the Committee meeting. The 360-degree reports were denied to me outright.
A detailed review of these records is crucial to assess each candidate’s history and performance. This deliberate denial of information, without any legal basis, makes a mockery of the selection process and ensures that only your pre-decided candidate is selected,” said Mr.
